First of all, why did you make a defense to my defense? Anyway, you never gave any opening statements for the debate, so I'll refute round one as it it was an opening statement because of the lack of rounds.

(Note: These are copied and pasted from my opening statements.)

The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."[1] Notice the bolded words. I won't focus on the fundamentals of a militia, but I'd like to add on the "well-regulated" part.

"The phrase 'well-regulated' was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order." [2]

With the way guns are handled today, you can't exactly call it well-regulated.

Previously, private sellers aren't required to do background checks of any kind on their customers to make sure they are fit to own a gun. [3] It was announced back in 2013 that universal background checks were going to be required. [4] But they still get around it!

"The FBI denied 72,659 attempted gun buys in 2010, based on red flags raised by the background check system, according to the most recent data available from the Department of Justice. That"s just 1.2 percent of the more than 6 million applications. The most common reasons: nearly half were felony indictment or conviction; 19 percent were fugitives; and 11 percent were those who had violated state laws. The rejection rate has been essentially unchanged over the years."[4]

This proves that there are inaccuracies in the background checks. So can you really ensure that every citizen is well regulated and healthy enough to own a gun? Absolutely not!

I have no idea what I'm doing round wise. I just know about the stuff I'm talking about.

As far as what you said, I addressed all of it but your last question, referring to how we could make sure citizens are well regulated.

First off, I would lie to clarify one thing- the right to own guns is for the people. The full extent of this right is what allows the people to create a well regulated Militia. A lot of people today seem to think that the second amendment only applies to a well regulated militia, or to the people if they can make a well regulated militia. but if you look at all the quotes from founding fathers regarding this issue (I gave you a hand full), they all specifically give the right to the people, not to a militia.

The idea of the second amendment is that the people need to make militias in order to ensure the security of their freedom, and that the way they do this is through guns. It make no sense to say that the Militia is necessary, therefore we will allow the people the ability make one, only if they are already a well regulated militia.

Second, the background checks are sketchy as they are (i already addressed this though), but it was no different back before background checks. And its obvious that you can never ensure that all guns are used properly, without banning guns. But the founding fathers knew this and they decided to still give people the right to have personal arms. they saw that the beauty of an armed populace is that it deters criminals. Its the same logic that prevents someone from picking a fight with a football team. The populace, when armed and synchronized is one of the strongest forces ever. No one in their right mind would mess with them, not a government, not a murderer. And those who would mess with it would be met with extraordinary force.

Because of the awkward structure, I'll waive this round. (Sorry I didn't specify that I'd do this last round.) It's only fair to do so. Thank you for the debate. It was a very fun one to write and research.